On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:40:46 +0900 Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that > >> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards > >> packets makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4. > > No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and > > DHCP for v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP > > in their toolkit can continue to do so, and roll out v6 ! > > no. what we need is more religious v6 fanatics to make use of v6 hard > to roll out on existing networks. after all, v6 is soooo wonderful we > should be happy to double our opex for the privilege of using such a > fantastic protocol. > > v6 fanaticism has done vastly more damage to v6 deployment than the v6 > haters. arrogance kills. >
As does excessive pessimism.
